No Clear Democratic Front-Runner

This is going to be the Media Whore party-line. The Democrats are in disarray because after six months, there still isn't a clear front runner. Somebody needs to remind the Washington Post that we're still six months away from the Iowa caucus and more than a year away from the Democratic National Convention.

My prediction: Mosely-Braun, Kucinich, Graham and Edwards will strike the tent in mid-March, followed in April by Lieberman and Gephardt (who will throw his considerable union support to his fellow Senator, John Kerry). Kerry will edge our Dean, but Dean will still have considerable clout at the convention (for whatever that's worth. I think it's a Kerry/Graham or a Kerry/Edwards ticket.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20525-2003Jul20.html?nav=hptop_tb

If I were a bettin' man, I'd put money on that.

Although - If I were a HYPOCRITICAL bettin' man, I'd be Bill Bennett...

.

You remember voting? Primaries? Decisions made by the voters who are the citizens of the nation?

You really want the election decided BEFORE anybody votes? Really? That's what you want for a democracy?

I want these boys to tell me how they'll undo Bush. THEN I'll decide.

And the ones who voted for war have a LOT more work to do to sell me. Why should I trust spineless yes men?

And that, snookums, is how we answer the whores.

Of course, I don't have to worry. My guy didn't vote for the war.

It is not favorable to have a front runner right now for the simple fact that 9 people will get more publicity(even bad publicity) than 1 person. We need as many people on TV saying that Bush* SUCKS!!!

Dean looks better every day, given his strong anti-war, anti-Bush stance....

Thanks for posting it.

and we don't operate as they do with the iron fist of conformity.

The other night I happened to catch a brief clip of the courageous Bernie Sanders railing at Greenspan accusing him of not caring for the middle-class and the poor. When asked to comment Reich plied approving compliments on Greenspan.

It was like the moment when I saw Helen Thomas ask Clinton about increasing monopolization and violation of anti-trust regs, and Clinton looked away without responding. I never forgot it and I will never forget Reich's compliments to Greenspan as a slap in the face of Sanders defense of all Americans who do not benefit from the Bush tax cuts.

Mainly, Bush/Rove doesn't want to face a veteran with Rand Beers and Gen. William Perry at his side. They'll do whatever they can to try to bump Kerry off or damage him during the primaries.

I needed that. Reading it was like going to your first Al Anon meeting and being told to relax! You didn't cause it and you can't cure it. But you can vote for the Democratic candidate in 2004, whoever that turns out to be.

If memory serves, Bill Clinton was barely a bleep on the radar screen at this point in the 1992 election. I say let these 9 candidates air their points of view and, come the primary, we will elect the one who most represents us. Not like in the Republican camp, where Bush was given the royal crown (pun intended) and knighted as their candidate.

In June 0f 1992, there was talk of Clinton finishing third behind Bush, Sr. and Ross Perot. We still have fifteen months until the 2004 Election, which is something like an eternity.

That being said, we still need to be out there working for local candidates (if you have off-off year municipal elections) and helping to build a stronger party structure. If you've never been contacted by your Precinct Captain, call your County Democratic Headquarters to see who it is. If there's not Precinct Captain in your precinct, volunteer.

It's the best way to ensure that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will be represented in your neighborhood.

Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell and ORGANIZE

(Preaching Mode OFF)

I'd wouldn't mind (at this point) seeing a Dean/Edwards ticket. I thinks they would make an imminently electable team. Dean, because he most represents my personal views, and Edwards because he's, well, a good-looking, smart, Southern fella.

I'll likely change my mind as this plays out, but I honestly think these guys could win big.

every time they trundle out the repetitive old story lines they would know how stupid this one is. In the Democratic party at least, with no incumbent, there generally is a wide choice of non-dominating contenders mainly because vote-earning quality, not boardroom kingmaking, is the essence of the process.

It ranks up there with "teenagers today" and groundhog shadow stories and ius meant to trash the Dems reflexively, at least to show the annoyance the childish media exhibits when things are not done their way.

The Democrats have their work cut out for them. Now that it's safe, even respectable, to criticise Bush for the "16 words," Dems are tripping over themselves to get in front of a microphone and equivocate about why they voted to let Bush have his war. Joe Biden is one of the biggest offenders in this regard. He of all people should have know better.

But the disorganized Dems aren't just running against Bush anymore - they're running against the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Jewish Instute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which for all intents and purposes are the same organization. These are the people who put who the "16 words" into Bush's SOTU speech.

The Dems biggest hurdle for 2004 is not just establishing the genesis of the 16 words. The war in Iraq was wrong regardless of the rationale the Bush admin. offers. Permanent UN inspectors in Iraq would have been safer and cheaper than killing thousands of Iraqis, spending hundreds of billions of our grandchildren's money, and squandering the hard-earned good-will of the international community.

The incredible irony of the coming election is that the Dems are now mouthing the same critcisms of Bush that old-fashioned Conservatives and REAL Liberals have been writing for years. Strangely enough anti-war Conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak are essentially in agreement with Liberals like Gore Vidal on the genesis of this war - ZIONISM. This is the lesson Jim Moran learned the hard way - criticise Israel and you immediately (and erroneously) get slagged as an "anti-Semite." Buchanan, Novak, Vidal, and others like Seymour Hersh and Justin Raimondo of http://antiwar.com are getting the same treatment - tell the truth about Israel and you're an anti-Semite.

This is the single biggest problem for Dems in 2004, because telling the truth about Bush and Iraq means telling the truth about Israel and the Zionist takeover of the pentagon by Perle, Shulsky, Wolfowitz, et al. These are the people corrupting and polluting the intelligence community.

Is there one Democrat with the balls to stand up and tell the world what's really going on? I doubt it.

ATC